Countdown 27 opinions [Spoilers]

Now that I've read the issue in question (and, honestly, this is the one countdown cliffhanger that's actually got me edge-of-the-seat, and of course I won't see the next one for a month!) I can have an opinion on the "Why did Jason Todd shoot Donna Troy?" issue.

I'll be very surprised if Jason is in fact turning to the (extra) dark side. I don't know about the knifing thing--whether he was going for the kill or just the maim (I'm hoping for the latter, mainly because I think he and Donna make a cute couple in a mirroring-Bruce-and-Diana sort of way)--but shooting Donna? Has to be part of some plan. (He did say he was trained by Batman, remember?) And while I'll freely admit to being no Jason Todd expert, from what I've managed to pick up, he may have been a bad guy, but he was an ethical bad guy. Kind of. You know. I mean he has some principles, regardless of what his methods may be--he's not going to switch sides just because the other side seems to be winning.

Now, I don't know if this (whatever it is) is something he told Donna about ahead of time, or if he expected her to pick up on what he had in mind and play along, or if he's totally on his own with this.

But. Why did Jason Todd shoot Donna Troy?

Because he knew she could take it.

Is this for real?

Here's a link at Popcultureshock, telling how Wizard Magazine now has the blurb "The #1 Men’s Pop-Culture Magazine" on its cover.

Is this right? They're actually doing that?

I'm not a regular Wizard reader, but I've been known to pick up a copy every so often. The thirteen-year-old occasionally asks to get it if there's something of interest to her in it; she might get it more often if she had more disposable income, but she doesn't, so she doesn't. So no, we're not their main customer base, but we're not in the "Wizard is evil!" camp, either.

So not only does Wizard clearly lean toward the male point of view (which limits but does not exclude my potential interest in it), but now it's got a big "He-Man Woman Haters Club" sign on it?

There's a difference between simply not catering to a group and being outright hostile to their presence.

Somehow I find that an odd marketing strategy--to unnecessarily and consciously limit their readership in that way. Without the blurb, women who objected to Wizard didn't buy it, and women who didn't object--or who figured there was enough content of interest to them to make it worth buying--did. Now, being told "no girls allowed" before you even crack the cover? All this can do is reduce sales.

Thoughts on a comic I won't be reading

Kalinara has a post up about the Flash, whose title I don't read. I like Wally all right, just not as a solo act. So I'm not sure what the backstory is here but it apparently has to do with Wally's kids acting as superheroes? And why that's bad?

I haven't read the story, probably won't, might look at discussion of it online if there is any more.

But I am curious about what's unique about the situation with Wally and his kids that makes it so different from all the other hero-kids in the DC universe.

Is it that he is actively encouraging their activity as opposed to "reluctantly" allowing it (a typical way to let the kid heroes exist while eliminating adult responsibility for what may happen to them--"aw, they're just going to do it anyway...").

Is it that he's the kids' biological father, rather than their mentor or guardian? (Because a "real" parent shouldn't put his kids in danger, but if it's just your ward or whatever, it's okay?)

Is it that the mother is also okay with this? That there's no familial "voice of reason" objecting to it?

Obviously I don't know, and won't unless some kind soul fills me in. :)

But I do know one thing, which is that there is a difference between kid heroes acting alone, and kid heroes acting in concert with adult heroes. Between teenage superheroes, and teenage sidekicks. And, while I don't see the teenage hero disappearing any time soon, I do think that the concept is just going to become more and more difficult to work with. Our society keeps a much closer eye on its' kids than it did even twenty years ago--parents are held liable for things that, in decades past, would have been considered accidents, no one's fault.

And I'm not saying that that's a bad thing--I'm saying that it makes any parent who is too supportive of their kid superhero's work seem like a bad parent. Unless there's some token objection to the kid taking that path, the parent seems careless, or even uncaring. The days when kids could roam the neighborhood freely all summer long, coming home only for meals and bedtime, are long gone, and the days when kid superheroes could fight crime together with no parental repercussions are also gone.

Which is probably why there's still a preponderance of kid superheroes who have no parents, are estranged from their parents, or who have been in some way exiled from their proper home. The issue is dealt with by making it a non-issue.

But Wally? I guess I just need to know more before making a judgment there.

Zap! Pow! Biff!

When I was a kid, the comic book heroines I liked best tended to be those with physical powers. The Scarlet Witch, the Wasp, the Invisible Girl, they were all cool--but they were basically the point-and-zap sort of hero. The Black Widow could fight, and later in her career you got to see more of it, but early on she seemed to make more use of her "widow's bite", which made her a point-and-zapper. Which is fine, but somehow didn't capture my imagination the way that the fighters did. I don't have, still frozen in my mind, the sorts of images of them that I have of the hands-on heroines.

You know how, if you've been reading comics since you were a kid, there are certain images that just stay with you for years?

I remember Ms. Marvel, whose entire all-too-brief original comic run is out on the porch right now.

I remember Mantis. Not exactly a feminist icon, but she certainly had some great moves.

I remember Tigra, following a villain to his lair by jumping onto the base of his helicopter and riding it all the way there.

I remember the Black Cat (apparently I picked up a Spider-Man at some point?) jumping (falling?) from a telephone wire while carrying a grown man and landing easily on the ground.

That doesn't mean that I didn't appreciate the other superheroines, but when I think back to the comics I read as a girl, the actual images that have stayed with me are, almost all of them, images of fighting. Not magic, not energy blasts, not Kicking, punching, that sort of thing.

I'm not sure why this is. It certainly didn't lead me to pursue any sort of martial art myself, so I don't think I particularly related to the physical abilities. But for some reason, those are the images of superheroines from my youth that come to mind--the ones that (usually) don't involve the use of powers, or at least not the use of distance powers. Maybe they seemed stronger? Maybe they seemed more subversive--more surprising? Maybe more based in reality? Maybe there's just something more viscerally satisfying about a punch to the jaw than there is about a lightning blast?

Of course, I've always been more interested in heroes of either gender who aren't too powerful. Batman, not Superman. Captain America, not the Hulk. Never cared for Thor. I did like Iron Man, but then he was always pretty vulnerable under the armor. (He isn't anymore, what with Extremis. Maybe that's why my interest in his title has lagged?) I generally prefer the earth-bound storylines to the cosmic ones, the street-level heroes to the starfarers.

So the fact that it's those superheroines who engage in physical combat that appealed most to me as a girl may just be an extension of that preference. However, the images of male superheroes that stick in my mind do often involve powers--things like Quicksilver in motion, Cyclops with the eye blasts, and so forth.

For some reason, to me, the most iconic superheroine actions have to do with physical combat.

I'm not really sure what that says about me. :)

Superheroes on screen

We rented Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. It was all right. Glad I didn't go to the theater for it.

I love superheroes, but I don't seem to care for superhero movies. Cartoons are all right, but I've never seen a live-action superhero movie that I really liked. Not even the X-Men pics. I liked the first Superman movie when I was a kid, but none of the rest. Never cared for the Batman pics. Spider-Man left me cold. And let's not even talk about the Hulk or Daredevil.

Part of this, I think, is that all these movies take place in a world in which the hero is isolated--he or she is the only super-type around. And one of the things I like about comics is the shared universe--the interactions among different heroes, the fact that they aren't alone, that the world is used to superheroes, that there's a whole superheroic subculture. The movies don't have this. I know why, of course--rights issues, movies last only a couple of hours and that's not enough time to deal well with even the title character, much less guests--and they're good reasons in movie terms. But it makes it a different world.

But I want to see the Iron Man movie. It just looks good.

I think it's the armor.

Comic book bodies, again

This is a link to pics of the finalists in the Marvel costume contest--real people dressed up in their own versions of Marvel Comics superhero costumes. Many of the costumes are really nicely done, but they still don't really look like the heroes in question.

This is when you really see how far from reality comic book bodies are--when you see real bodies trying to wear comic book costumes.

Some of this is because real spandex doesnt fit the same way that comic-book spandex does--even if the wearer is muscular, actual spandex doesn't reveal your pecs and abs the way it does in the comics.

Some of this is because the person wearing the outfit doesn't really look much like the hero in question--they're not really all that fit, for example.

But in some cases the wearer is actually in pretty good physical condition, but the costume still looks strange on an in-shape real body. The guy wearing the Punisher outfit, for example, seems to be pretty fit--just not compared to the way Frank Castle is drawn.

Even where they come closest, the Phoenix or Black Widow costumes--both being worn by fit young women--it's pretty obvious that real people just don't have superhero bodies. In the costume their waists seem thick, their legs short--because you're used to seeing unusually slender waists and unnaturally long legs when you see that costume, their perfectly normal and by-most-standards attractive proportions seem off.

Hey, potential cool!

Newsarama says that there's a delay on part of the Spider-Man "One More Day" thing. Which I hadn't been planning to get.

But if you go to the link and click on the image to enlarge it (or maybe you don't need to enlarge if your eyes are better than mine), you'll see, center right, a pic of the Valkyrie, who was my main reason for reading The Defenders back in the day. If there is a Valkyrie appearance coming up, I might have to check it out. That would be very awesome.

Despite the fact that the breastplates look ridiculous, which they always do because no one can draw them because they're historically inaccurate. :)

Spoilish question for folks who are familiar with the New Gods [Spoilers]

The internet tells me that Big Barda has been killed off in order to piss off Mr. Miracle.

Isn't that kind of like killing off Superman in order to piss off Lois?

Maybe it's because I don't keep up with a lot of DC, don't read absolutely everything, and am a relatively recent reader at that, but I've seen Barda doing interesting cool stuff all over the place. Mr. Miracle, not so much. I was under the impression that she was the big-deal hero out of that pairing. That she'd have the better vengeful wrath vibe? No?

(Yes, yes, the Superman/Lois example was a bad one, but I couldn't think of another heroic couple where my perception of the two parties and their abilities/standing was so different. Yes, I do know that Mr. Miracle is himself a hero, not simply a spouse/supporting character. :))

Semi-annual, semi-comic-related feminist ramblings

This will probably be less deep than you'd expect. :)

I'm old--well, I'm 45, and I only feel old some days, but today's one of those days so I'm old. I'm tired. I don't get enough sleep, it's cold and grey out, and I don't necessarily feel like thinking too hard. If I picked up a comic today, it would be comfort reading. That's not always the case but it often is, and it does mean that I don't put on my deep-thinking cap before I open a book, and I often-though-not-always read them with my kid brain, not my grown-up brain. That certainly colors my commentary.

I consider myself a feminist, have done since I first heard of it thirty years or so ago, but I clearly don't have the same feminist sensibilities as a lot of folks do. Which is fine, it's a range of opinion, not a single point.

But it does, sometimes, make me feel a bit intellectually lazy when I totally miss something that someone else points out.

And it does, sometimes, make me question myself when I still don't see what's being referenced--or, sometimes, I see it but don't feel that the interpretation is as obvious as the writer thinks. "Feminist" is not one of my primary self-identifications, so I don't worry a lot about not belonging to the club if I don't, but it does cross my mind, and it does make me think about whether my literature is beating on my ideals.

The problem is that, at this point, most people agree on the more clear-cut aspects of equality--that people should get equal pay for equal work is a given, for example, not something that anyone seriously argues against anymore. What's left can be pretty vague, and often subject to individual interpretation. That doesn't mean it's not valid, just that it's not really quantifiable. And it's hard to argue a perception-based point when one party's basic assumptions (about what's sexy/sexist/appropriate) are so fundamentally different from the other's.

Personal example: As a teenager back in the 70s, my take on feminism was that "women should be equal to men." What this meant to me, back then, was that women should be able to do anything that men could, and vice versa (obvious biological limitations excepted, of course). That was pretty much it--and at that time, that was a big deal because it wasn't a given. This is all pretty clear-cut stuff, and consists of relatively easy points to argue. It also, clearly, tends to retain the existing cultural model--the idea that women can do the same jobs as men came along with the idea that women could be like men and act in the same ways as men, it didn't question the validity of those ways.

(Please note that I'm not claiming that everything is perfect in that arena now, just stating that no one who wants to be taken seriously is going to argue that any of that is a bad idea. The culture as a whole has internalized the notion of equal pay for equal work, work should be done based on qualifications rather than gender, and so forth. Obviously it doesn't always work out that way, but it's a generally accepted ideal.)

And you know, my comics reflected that--by this time the Wasp had stopped mooning over anything in pants and become Avengers' chair, and the Invisible Girl was now considered the most powerful member of her team. Ms. Marvel and Spider-Woman had their own very different books. The Cat became Tigra and made numerous appearances during which she generally kicked some butt. On the whole, though, their new strengths were the same strengths shared by their male colleagues. Their superheroic potential was made greater, but only by making them more equivalent (rather than equal) to the male heroes, and it would never have occurred to me to question that because it was pretty awesome compared to what had gone before.

When I hit college, I was introduced to the idea of valuing gender differences--that the standard model of behavior (corporate, academic, family) shouldn't be accepted without question. While it was still important that a woman could be as good a "company man" as anyone, now it was in question whether that traditional model was the best model. It's not obvious stuff, not when it was a big enough deal that women could now take on roles that were previously reserved for men. But the idea that, to be a good feminist, you didn't have to "act like a man"--that you can be a feminist and still take on traditional female roles as long as it's a choice and not a requirement--was probably more empowering than just about anything else, because there wasn't the subtle ranking of women who can and do play with the big boys over women who choose not to. (Although not necessarily. After the now-thirteen-year-old was born, I joined a mailing list for feminist stay-at-home moms, and there was quite a range of women there, a number of whom took all sorts of crap from other feminists because of their choice to stay home--and this was in the mid-90s!)

You didn't see much of this in comics. Superheroines are sort of by definition going to be part of the established paradigm, at least in terms of what they do. And to be honest, Marvel never has done all that well with making Sue Richards' role as a mother something significant (or Reed's role as a father, for that matter), other than the whole "mama bear protecting her cub" thing, which isn't all that interesting. In fact, the only character I can think of offhand who has retained her personality while taking on more of a traditional female role is, maybe, Jessica Jones--and it was already part of her character that she wasn't comfortable with the role of traditional superhero. Still, you do see her with her baby once in a while, which in comics is a pretty big thing.

And at least you no longer see so much of the tough super-women showing their feminine side by going shopping because that's the main "woman thing" the writer could think of. :)

But no, I don't think that this is a concept that has translated well to comics. I don't think that comics have come up with non-traditional hero models that work. I'm not sure they will. Just look at all the discussion of whether an interesting story can be told about superheroes who are parents, or superheroes who are married? The implication is that no one really wants to try, and I'm guessing that that extends to a lot of potential alternatives. I'll continue to read, regardless, but I'd rather see that dealt with than many of the other issues folks talk about.

Monthly comics blues. (And my 300th post!)

The week before the comics arrive is the worst time to think of things to write about. On the one hand, any comics I have on hand are almost a month old, nothing new to see there. On the other hand, although I'm not always shy about writing about things I haven't read yet, right now I'm hesitant because I'll have them in a week or so.

And this month I'll have a good-sized stack, because I made an error in ordering a couple of months ago leading to a short order last month and a big one this time. Two of Captain America is happy-making. Two Green Lantern, two Birds of Prey, two All-New Atom. ('Course none last month was not so fun. :))

Personal Tigra discussion moratorium for at least another week or so

I've decided to hold off on any more commentary on the Tigra thing until I've actually read the NA issue in question--possibly until I've read the issue after the issue in question (which would make it a month-plus moratorium :)). Going to try to avoid reading any more of other folks' commentary until then as well.

We'll see how well I do at resisting temptation. :)

More awesome!

Here's some good news for sort-of-old-time comic fans, as told by Again With the Comics:

They're coming out with a Hembeck Omnibus!

I used to love Hembeck. I guess he had a regular feature in DC comics but I didn't read them as a kid/teenager, so what I read were his collections. They were awesome--awesome! And funny. :) Definitely funny. My brother and I were both fans, back in the day. So I'm considering getting this one, although the idea of 900 pages is a bit daunting.

Gods, I'm old. :)

More (good) Tigra, please.

I've only been skimming the comic blogoverse just lately, but I did pick up on the fact that there's something going on with Tigra.

Actually, we've been seeing a lot of Tigra lately.

She was in Mighty Avengers. On a date with Hank Pym. Well, they've got some history so it's not unbelievable, but still not quite an action sequence.

She was in Ms. Marvel. I haven't seen the last Ms. M yet, but from what I gather there was some fighting going on. Unfortunately, it was mind-controlled Tigra fighting Carol, which--much as I like Tigra--isn't exactly an even match. And there was strangely-pervy Puppet Master stuff going on as well. So possibly not a good Tigra appearance, but an appearance.

And now, apparently, she's in New Avengers. Being beaten up by bad guys. Haven't seen it yet, but I am probably okay with it--as long as she gets to do something other than be beaten and rescued.

The good thing is that Tigra isn't really linked with any other characters to the point where a beating on her is a personal attack on them. You know, as in an attack on Tigra is probably going to be an attack on Tigra, not somebody else. So, hopefully, she'll get to kick some butt.

I always did like Tigra. I preferred Greer as The Cat, but that was such a short run that it's not really a fair comparison, and Tigra, though often poorly used, has had her moments. Let's hope that she's got one coming up soon.

More literally-ignorant thoughts on the new Cap

The issue with the new Cap costume on the cover is #34, which means that it's out in January. Given the rate at which time seems to pass in CA right now, that doesn't seem like enough time for Winter Soldier to come around to the idea of taking on the Captain America mantle.

Yes, he's comfortable with guns and knives to a degree that the other likely candidates are not, which does seem to point to him given the cover image.

But I still think that, unless something unexpected happens (always a possibility with Brubaker), he's more likely to want the Captain America role to die with Steve than to be willing to take it on himself.

First of all, he idealizes Steve. He protects the Captain America identity because he doesn't think anyone else is worthy of taking it on.

Second, he does not think he, himself, is in any way up to the job either. He's very much aware of how different the two of them are, in method and in character, and while it's possible to imagine circumstances in which he would honor Steve's memory in this way, I don't see him doing it right now. I also don't see him doing it with a knife and a gun--remember, even back in WWII, Bucky was they guy who got to do the dirty work, the things that Cap didn't (and although Cap surely didn't think these tasks were below him, he clearly agreed that they weren't things that the guy in the Cap suit should be seen doing). I don't think that his actions as the Winter Soldier since his memory was restored are uncharacteristic, but they're not representative of what he might consider the "better" part of himself, a part he probably considers long gone.

I think that if WS were at some point to be willing to "become" Captain America, he'd feel he should act more like the Cap he knew did. And right now he doesn't seem to have either the ability to--or, really, the interest in--changing his methods.

Actually, the main way in which I can see it being Bucky in the costume is if he's not in his right mind--if, perhaps, he's (still?) under the control of the Skull and Faust, who would certainly have reason to want a Captain America who really isn't what Captain America should be.

Otherwise, given the information we have to date, I'd have to guess that it's someone else. Possibly someone new.

WFTT again.

You know, I've been looking forward to Marvel's The Twelve, and the first issue is in the upcoming solicitations.

But I'm thinking that on this one I might just wait for the trade.

I'm finding that I really like having the trades--much easier to read, much easier not to lose, much easier to just stick on a shelf. And while I'm looking forward to this storyline, I'm thinking it's not an edge of the seat sort of thing.

I hope and assume that it will eventually go into trade form. Everything does, these days, right? :)

Awesomeness!

According to Newsarama's first look at the January Marvel solicitations, there is going to be a Young Avengers mini coming up.

YOUNG AVENGERS PRESENTS #1 (of 6)
They’re back at last! Patriot, Hulkling, Wiccan, Vision, Stature and Hawkeye! Where have they been and what is their place in this new post-CIVIL WAR Marvel Universe? It will take six issues by six top creative teams to tell the tale! In this first installment, featuring PATRIOT, the grandson of the black Captain America struggles with his unresolved feelings about the death of Steve Rogers, and seeks out the Winter Soldier hoping to find some guidance. But who he’s looking for and who he finds may be two different things! By Eisner and Harvey Award-Winning Best Writer Ed Brubaker and rising star Paco Medina.

Finally, something to really look forward to! We've been waiting so long for any sign of the YA kids. Like, their book? Well, no sign of that. But this is something. Thank you, Marvel.

Lazy link-blogging

Here are a few links to posts about the new Captain America costume.

In Your Father's Shadow, at Snap Judgments.

Man of Steel, at Super Underwear Perverts.

It's Been A Bad Year For Cap, at 2 Guys Buying Comics.

I'm kind of holding off on having a real opinion on this until I know more about what's going on with the new outfit. Who's in the suit? Why are they in the suit? Who are they working for (if anyone)? It's not a bad-looking costume, but it's not Captain America, which is probably the point.

How many comics do I need, anyway?

I've been trying to catch up on my blog reading (it's amazing how quickly it gets away from you!), and came across this article at the Newsarama blog.

It's an interesting read about serialized media such as comics (or series television), and whether it's really necessary to pick up all the fringe titles that have to do with a main event or other storyline you're following. Here's a good quotation:

Still, depending on the extent to which a particular issue’s information is reproduced online, the Internet may be a poor substitute for reading the actual comics. I don’t watch “Lost” anymore, because I feel like I get enough from Television Without Pity. My imagination most likely doesn’t sync up with the actual episodes, but at this point I’m not curious about the show’s visuals. I just want to know what happened.

Now, I love my comics and all, but when I pick up a book and it turns out to be something I don't want, I'm not happy. "Something I don't want" would mean something that I only pick up because I think I might need or want it to follow a storyline I do like. I'm actually pretty forgiving on this point--if it's a good story anyway, mor if it features characters I tend to follow, I probably won't resent having purchased a mostly-useless piece of story. But the former is subjective and the latter is a matter of individual preference.

Grumpy Old Fan gives the example of the recent Sinestro Corps Parallax one-shot, the one featuring Kyle Rayner. I've got this one. I'm happy to have it, because I follow Kyle as a character. If it was a similar storyline featuring Hal, I'd probably be a little irked because, while I don't dislike Hal, I don't like him enough to want a book filled with almost nothing but character material about him. There is, as GAF points out, a salient plot point here--but that I could have found on the net. Please note that I'm not complaining about having bought the book, just pointing out that I know why I'm not complaining. :)

(I'd also like to attempt to paranthetically counter any "internet spoilers are taking money from the comic companies" discussion by pointing out that, while there's undoubtedly truth to this, I personally buy more books because of the internet than I would otherwise. Double edged sword and all that.)

Reading too much into things

Because I can't resist temptation, I had to look at the preview for Captain America 31, here. And of course I'm all "can't wait, can't wait!"

Had a thought, though. And I'm sure it's just me seeing what's not there. But anyway...

This title has recently consisted of somewhat-separate storylines, each from a different character's point of view; these sections have been indicated by caption boxes with different coloring. Sharon Carter's POV caption boxes have had a yellow hue, while Winter Soldier's have been plain white.

In the preview, however, we see yellow-tinged caption boxes in the scene where Faust is attempting to brainwash WS, sort of masquerading as WS's own caption boxes. So in this case the yellow is a sign of Faust insinuating himself into someone's thoughts. I'm looking at it online of course, so colors may not be true and it may well be a different shade of yellow from Sharon's own. But now I'm also wondering if it's an additional indicator of just how tightly Faust has had her under his control.

Captain America stuff [Spoilers]

There are a couple of Captain America-related pieces on Newsarama today.

First, this one announcing a "new" Captain America.

Then, this discussion and response to the new Cap design.

So, the "new" Cap has a variant on Cap's traditional costume, carries the shield (possibly the real one), and carries a gun.

And it's clearly not Sam Wilson in the costume.

The gun indicates that it's probably not Clint Barton, either (even if we didn't already know it wasn't, since he already turned down the costume).

Could be Winter Soldier, although I hope not, as his regular duds are way cooler than that costume. Unless...he's doing this while under the control of the Skull and Faust? That could be interesting. 'Course I have no idea what's happening in the book between now and then so have no idea if that's a viable theory.

(Guess I'm just assuming that it isn't Steve, because I didn't even consider that possibility.)

Why comics are better than TV

I have a bit of a love-hate relationship with television. There are shows I like, and watch if I'm home when they're on, or if I think of it, but I'm always a bit annoyed when I find a show I really like, because then I have to go out of my way to watch it. Maybe even find a tape to record it (gah!). (No, we don't have Tivo, and we won't be getting it.)

This comes to mind because the husband has been making a point of watching Torchwood, and I've been half-watching it due to being in the same room doing something else. Sort of avoiding paying too much attention because, damn it, I don't want to have to schedule around a television show. It's irritating. But I might have to. Not sure yet. For some reason I quite liked tonight's episode, although I can't imagine why because I can think of several things that sucked about it. But favorite shows are like relationships, you can say "I like this" or "this is fun about it" but what makes them better than similar shows--what makes them favorites--is indefinable.

But comic books? Yeah, we have to wait until they come out. But once they're out? We can read them whenever and wherever we like. They don't intrude. They don't insist on being read at a particular time on a particular day. Whenever's convenient for you is fine with them.

I like that.

I just don't understand

Okay, so I hear that the Cable and Deadpool title is going to be dropped. In favor of a Cable solo title.

Incomprehensible.

Cable is tolerable when he's paired with Deadpool.

On his own? Um, no.

Just so's Deadpool gets to do something cool as well, please?

Customer-friendly comic shops

I read this article today, in part about woman-friendly comic shops, how they are and how they aren't.

Naturally, this made me think of something slightly different.

The last time I was in a comic shop, several months ago, I was pleased and suprised to see that we (the husband, the eight-year-old, the then-twelve-year-old, and me) weren't the only family in there. There was another couple with three kids, two boys and a girl, somewhere between six and ten years old. They were looking at the superhero titles, just as mine were. (None were looking at the kid-specific rack with all the Marvel Adventures and cartoon-based DCs, but that was at the front of the shop and they had probably looked it over when they came in, as we had, and moved on.)

The shop was fairly clean, spacious, and well ventilated. The longboxes were on tables in the center of the room, with the new comics on display in the back. There were a few posters, and the windows were painted (Green Lantern, yay!) We don't much care if a store is fancy as long as it has what we want.

In fact, a lot of the time when we went into a shop (we don't have any locally, so if we're out of town we often visit a few), I got the sense that my girls were the only kids they'd seen all day. Sometimes someone offered to help us find what we wanted, but honestly, if I look like I know what I'm doing, I'm happier if sales clerks just leave me alone (please don't hover!). Sometimes someone gave the girls some leftover Free Comic Day books, which is nice and all, but almost never anything they actually want. One store owner was particularly nice about helping find things that the kids would like--as in, he asked who they liked and found something kid-appropriate featuring that character (Storm, in this case).

Because kid-friendly doesn't have to mean kid-oriented.

(Although I suppose that that any store featuring comic books and action figures is sort of kid-oriented by definition. :))

Kid-friendly just has to mean not hostile to kids. It has to mean that kid customers are treated as customers.

I suppose the same is basically true of female-friendly shops?

So, the article says that

I'm sure that many women have sworn off comics rather than try to deal with buying them in a hostile environment....[but] Most mail order businesses that are easy to find and, for that matter, order from, don't carry the best books for female fans.

I'm not sure what "the best books for female fans" would be, but then I'm a long-term comic fan who prefers mainstream superhero titles. I'm guessing that I wouldn't find much to my taste in a comic store that catered specifically to women, although I think it would be very cool if such a thing existed. (I don't tend to go to women's book stores, either, but I have friends who love them--not only for the product content but for the atmosphere. A women's comic store would of course have a much smaller potential customer base, although I'd think that one could do well online.)

Comic shops do try to make a point of carrying "the best books for kid fans." They often keep them all together, sometimes away from the rest of the titles (whether to protect the kids or the other books, I don't know). But it's a market they don't want to ignore. And it's not just kids who buy the kid books--I know of plenty of adult comic fans who love the Marvel Adventures line--so I'd say it's a good marketing choice.

But back to the first shop. I don't know if there were any other women in the shop, apart from myself and the other mom. I didn't notice. I generally don't notice. We'd been to this shop before, and sometimes there's a woman working there, but she wasn't there that day if I recall correctly.

But I definitely notice when there were other kids there. Very cool, I thought, that here was another family enjoying the comic hobby together. You don't see that too often.

Comic fandom's voice

There's been some comic blog discussion lately about voice.

As in, the voice we may choose to use in expressing ourselves on various topics, in this case topics of interest to feminist comic fans. There's the "you can get more flies with honey" side, and there's the "squeaky wheel gets the grease" side. And there are good points on both sides, as far as useful debating technique goes.

Speaking as someone burdened with a surfeit of tact, I may not be the best person to comment on this subject--I know my own preferences, but I also know that these are my preferences, and my choice of how to interact with others. I make no claim that my way is the only way, or even necessarily the best way in all circumstances. It's what I'm comfortable with, and it's what works for me. I grew up in a rational family. We tend not to yell or to be rude, any of us, women or men.

That's not saying that I don't appreciate the rhetorical value of not being all sweetness and light. Sometimes that's what's needed to get noticed. "Squeaky wheel," remember?

Different techniques are useful in dealing with different situations. Different techniques are useful when presenting to different audiences. Different techniques are useful in achieving different goals. Different techniques are useful. Specifically, the ability to choose and utilize different techniques is useful. The less limited your rhetorical choices, the more likely you are to be successful.

'Course that still leaves the question of which techniques are appropriate in which situations, and there's no answering that one definitively.

What I can say is this: are the rhetorical suggestions being given to women fans also being given to fans who belong to other specific subgroups of comic fandom? Do we see posts telling (for example) Green Lantern fans to play nice when they're making their complaints? Telling those fans who despise Didio or Quesada that, really, they ought to tone down the vinegar? If so, then cool. If not, then why?

Comic pride

I was reading the blogs today, and came across this article at Whereof One Can Speak, about reading comics in public--while on the bus, waiting for a dentist appointment, etc.--rather than novels or magazines or other reading material.

I don't do a lot of reading in public of anything these days. I don't have a commute, I rarely have appointments that require a lot of waiting. I occasionally throw whatever paperback I happen to be reading into my purse if I know I'm going to have a wait, but usually I don't.

But I read my comics in public all through high school. (Didn't in college, but that's because I didn't have them there--I was away from home and my brother picked up my comics for me to read whenever I had a vacation.) I'd sit in study hall with a stack of Legion of Superheroes, never thought a thing about it (other than that there are definitely perks for being a good student who never makes trouble).

When I went on a class trip, I insisted that we stop at a Real Comic Shop (my first, an awesome experience), and had no problem with doing that either.

Comics weren't particularly popular when I was a kid/teen; I think I had exactly one friend who also enjoyed them (X-Men, there was just the one title back then).

Granted that I may have been an unusual teenager in embracing my geek-ness to that extent, particularly in the late 70s, but I never saw the point of hiding my choice of reading material, and I never had a single negative comment. Maybe I also went to a school with an unusually tolerant and kind-hearted student body? Seems unlikely, doesn't it? I think folks just don't really care about that stuff.

But as far as I know, I never inspired anyone to pick up a comic. Not even the kids who were dragged into the comic shop with me. (IIRC they browsed, but did not buy.) In fact, as far as I know, the only folks I've ever inspired to read comics have been the kids and the husband, and that's because they're in the same house with me.

Although we have always got stacks of comics around the house. (Mainly because the husband tends to let them pile up and then read them all at once. The thirteen-year-old is annoyed by this because it means that she and I can't talk about Deadpool's latest adventures in front of him until he's caught up. :)) And sometimes when we've got company, someone will pick up a comic and read it, or glance through it. That's something, I guess. :)

What's New On My Blogroll? (Part Seven)

Those Wednesdays

Comic commentary and analysis. Recent good stuff: Good Writing vs. Good Business: Shared Universes.


Wednesday Is My Sabbath

Nice tight reviews of the blogger's weekly purchases. Recent good stuff: The Stack TWL (Three Weeks Later).



And that's it for new additions, for now. I really should do this more often...

What's New On My Blogroll? (Part Six)

No Ego Problems Here!

Not-entirely-comic-related blog with a lot of comic content; recently has featured a series of excellent synopses of and commentary on the Countdown books. Recent good stuff: 33 and counting...


Rack Raids

Detailed reviews of mainstream and independent comics. Recent good stuff: Black Canary/Green Arrow Wedding one-shot.


Super Underwear Perverts

Possibly-NSFW blog focusing on pretty, pretty pictures of men. Comic content often light, but never fails to cheer me up. :) Recent good stuff: Crush: Patrick Stewart.


Suspension of Disbelief

Comic reviews and commentary, often pointing out things I'd never have thought of. Recent good stuff: Sprechen Sie Deutsch, Herr Claremont?


Tales to Mildly Astonish

Extensive commentary and reviews. Recent good stuff: Top Ten Marvels, Minus One.

What's New On My Blogroll? (Part Five)

Green Lantern Butts Forever

Green Lantern-focused blog with some non-GL content; not entirely butt-related. :) Recent good stuff: Let's try this again...Dammit!


ink destroyed my brush

Insightful blog of a comic artist and long-time fan, featuring original art as well as commentary. Recent good stuff: The Shooter Story: Beginning, Middle and End.


Major Spoilers

Previews, commentary, and marvelously detailed discussions of reviewed comics, ideal for filling in the blanks when you just don't want to get everything in a given crossover. One of the best places to be spoiled :). Recent good stuff: Birds of Prey #110.


Mortlake on the Schuylkill

Wide-ranging blog with plenty of good comic discussion. Recent good stuff: Cooke's Power Girl.


Neither Doormat nor Prostitute

Good comic commentary with a feminist slant. Recent good stuff: More on how DC fails this week.

What's New On My Blogroll? (Part Four)

Every Day Is Like Wednesday

Good discussion of current and older comics. Recent good stuff: Same old complaining, brand new example.


Exercise in Futility

Concise comic reviews and discussion. Recent good stuff: Thursday Thank Yous


Eye on Comics

Detailed comic discussion and reviews. Recent good stuff: Ray, Ray, Go Away; Come Again Another Day.


Four Color Media Monitor

Discussion of current comic issues, particularly good with using past comic continuity in commentary on these current issues. Recent good stuff: Is brainwashing not a way of causing mental insanity?


Funnybook Babylon

Comic discussion and critique. Recent good stuff: Downcounting: A Guide for the Perplexed Presents Upcatching: A Funnybook Babylon Event #1 (Week #32, "Girls Gone Wild")

What's New On My Blogroll? (Part Three)

Comic Pants

Very nice, very diverse blog featuring comic discussion and reviews presented as recurring features (such as "Wednesday Number Ones" or "Rumble Pants"). Themed blogs are hard to pull off, but this blog does surprisingly well with the "pants" theme; possibly this is why, although it's a group blog, there's a unity that's often missing in multi-author blogs. Recent good stuff: Wednesday Number Ones 09/19/07


Conditional Axe

Mixed media blog with comic content, although comic content has been less lately. Recent good stuff: Comics To Internet: F*** You.


Counting To None

Countdown-focused blog featuring weekly discussions of the weekly comic. Recent good stuff: #33--The Surprise Ending That Surprised No One.


Digital Femme Online

Thought-provoking blog with good comic content, focusing on current issues. Recent good stuff: Fandom is nuts, yo.


Don't Worry About Countdown--Focus Elsewhere

Originally a Countdown-centered blog which changed focus, becoming a more general comic review site. Recent good stuff: 50th Post--Capsule reviews for the last two weeks.


Dude! It's a chick!!

General blog with a lot of excellent comic content. Recent good stuff: Spectacular Comic Shop Girl #6

Superhero marriage

I was reading this article at the Comics Should Be Good site, all about superhero marriage, and of course it made me think a bit, which is never a bad thing.

One thing leading to the notion that marriage = the death of drama, I think, is that in much of the fiction we grew up with, marriage does mark the end of the story. In fairy tales, the happily-ever-after means that there's no more to the story--or at least, implicitly, nothing worth telling. So there's a definite literary pattern that may be hard for some folks to see beyond. Once the Handsome Prince kisses Snow White or Sleeping Beauty awake and brings her home, the story is over. He's already completed his goal (finding a bride, presumably in order to procreate) and might as well retire. The bride, for her part, probably never leaves the castle grounds again. They have done what they were created to do--overcome interesting obstacles in order to find love/marriage/family. Once they've done that, there's no drama, no tension. Once they've done that, what else is there?

You see it in movies as well, particularly in older movies but in a number of more modern films as well--the film ends when boy gets girl, kiss, fade. What happens next? Not important.

And regardless of what you think of the whole theme, you must admit that it can be satisfying to the reader to have that sort of conclusion, that sort of closure. The reader (or, in the case of movies, viewer) is not left wanting more because there is no more. The piece stands alone.

However, this is a pretty useless pattern when you're dealing with episodic fiction. You can shake it up or you can maintain status quo, either can work, but you can't have a marriage be "happily ever after" as you can with a movie or novel. The characters have to come back next month, and the month after, and hopefully for many issues to come. They have to do something interesting in order to do this. And if your entire storyline hinged on romantic tension, on the love story, then yes, marriage (the attainment of a goal) is going to be problematic.

But shouldn't there be more going on in a superhero comic than just a love story? If the state of a character's love life is what determines the type of story that can be told, there really needs to be more going on in the book.

---

Anyway, I'd like to comment on a few things the folks at Comics Should Be Good said.

Nevertheless, that is the commonly held belief — you get married, you instantly become dull.

There is, actually, a little bit of truth to this. Certainly not from the point of view of the married, but my husband and I definitely provide less quality gossip for our circle of friends than the single folks do. And speaking of gossip, it certainly seems to center on love lives more than anything else, due to a certain amount of prurience inherent in human nature. There are moral dilemmas having nothing to do with romance--many of them far more interesting than yet another unrequited love or cheating boyfriend--but you'd never know it from scanning the headlines at the grocery-store checkout counter. It's what we're used to seeing presented as interesting.

It may also be that the more interesting parts of being married are more difficult to portray--marriage isn't an end, it's a process, and like any relationship it changes over time. Yet in fiction, marriage is typically portrayed as an end.

What marriage really gets rid of, plot-wise, is only a certain sort of availability--a character who is married is no longer available to participate in single characters' love stories. (Usually. There were some old Avengers stories that had some fun with this.) But, again--aren't superhero comics about more than love stories?

Weirdly, all the people who are complaining that marriage is a terrible idea for comics characters are okay with Reed and Sue Richards in the Fantastic Four, who’ve been married for most of the book’s history… over forty years, in fact.

True enough, which makes me think that the real problem some folks have is with change rather than with marriage per se. Reed and Sue have been married (hell, had a kid) ever since I've been reading FF, and I'm pretty old. Before that, they were established as a dating couple--sure, Namor showed up a few times, but there was never any sense that Sue really wanted anyone except Reed. We're used to Reed and Sue being married. More importantly, we've never seen either of them actively single--no dating others, no series of boy/girlfriends. For Reed and Sue, marriage is the status quo.

On the other hand, take a character who's got a history of dating around, say Tony Stark or Bruce Wayne, and marry them off? I can see the complaints from here. It'd have to be a strong storyline to make that work.

I personally don't much care whether Spider-Man is married or not, because I'm not particularly a Spider-Man fan. Doesn't bother me if he is, doesn't bother me if he isn't. But as some folks have said, he's been married for quite a while--for a significant portion of his fan base, married Spider-Man is his status quo. They've never read him unmarried. They've never seen Peter on the dating scene. And it doesn't seem to have affected his popularity, as far as I can tell.

What's New On My Blogroll? (Part Two)

Blog@Newsarama

Like it says, the blog at the Newsarama site. Includes discussion, commentary, comic news. As a blog associated with a major comic site, it tends to be less personal than many other blogs and to have less of a single voice, but you do hear about a lot of interesting things. Recent good stuff: Variations on a Theme...


Blurred Productions

Good disussion of comics and other media. Recent good stuff: Conspiracies & other nonsense...


Christians Read Comics Too

Comic-focused blog with some other media content; does not actually have a religious theme, and there's plenty of interest to comic fans on any or no spiritual path. Recent good stuff: Commentary: Amazing Spider-Man #544 - The "One More Day" Part One of Four.


Comic Book Thoughts

Extensive discussion of current comic books, primarily DC. Recent good stuff: Things I learned from Amazons Attack.


Comic By Comic

Current comics, other media, news. Recent good stuff: So when do we get one with G'nort?